7 ms·

> I firmly believe that training models qualifies as fair use There's a hell lot of money to be made from this belief so of course the HN crowd will hold it.

by chx 3y ago

> I firmly believe that training models qualifies as fair use There's a hell lot of money to be made from this belief so of course the HN crowd will hold it. Some of us here who have been around the copyright hustle for a little longer laugh at this bitterly and pray that the courts and/or Doctorow's activism saves us. But there's so much money to be made from automatized plagiarism and the forces against are so weak, the hope is not much. The world will be a much, much poorer place once all the artists this view exploits will stop making art because they need to make a living. See https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/status/1744422377113501998 https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/status/1744422377113501998 and https://i.imgur.com/zOOcPCi.jpg https://i.imgur.com/zOOcPCi.jpg

c0pium 3y ago
Generative models are just a tool. Artists are mad because this tool empowers other people, who they view as less talented, to make art too. The camera and 1-hour film developing didn’t destroy oil paintings, it just enabled more people to have control over what was on their walls.
- eek2121 3y ago
  No, I have to disagree here. I'm not an artist, but I respect the creations of others. OpenAI does not. They could have trained on free data, but it did not want to because it would cost more (finding humans to find/sanction said data, etc).
- romwell 3y ago
  >Generative models are just a tool. Sure. It's just a tool. That need other people's art to work. If it's "just a tool" in and of itself, then there's no problem keeping it away from other people's art. >The camera and 1-hour film developing didn’t destroy oil paintings Because the copyright laws were extended to include photographic reproduction of art as something you need to obtain a permission (and a license) for. The same needs to happen for generative AI. A photocopy machine is just a tool too. So is the printing press.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    > Sure. It's just a tool. That need other people's art to work. So does a human brain. Which brings us to the other side of the reasoning is that tools like Midjourney and OpenAI enable idiots (when it comes to drawing/animating ... that includes me) to create engaging artwork. Recently generating artwork like that went from almost impossible to "great, but easily recognizeable as AI artwork". Frankly, I expect the discussion will end when it stops being recognizeable. I hate Andreesen Horowitz' reasoning, but they're right about one thing: once we have virtual artists that are not easy to distinguish from "real" ones, the discussion will end. It does not really matter what anyone's opinion on the matter is as it will not make a difference in the end.
    - vkou 3y ago
      > So does a human brain. A major difference between a human training himself by looking at art, and a computer doing it, is that the human ends up working for himself, the computer is owned by some billionaire. One enhances the creative potential of humanity as a whole, the other consolidates it in the hands of the already-powerful. Another major difference is that a human can't use that knowledge to mass-produce that art at a scale that will put other artists in the poorhouse. The computer can. Copyright exists to benefit humanity as a whole... And frankly, I see no reason for why a neural network's output should be protected by copyright. Only humans can produce copyrightable works, and a prompt is not a sufficient creative input.
      - WereAllMadHere 3y ago
        Visual artists cannot create without tools. Whether that tool is a brush and paint, a camera, or a neural network. Whether an artist pays for a subscription to openAI or buys paint pots on Amazon.com money is going to a billionaire, it is not a difference between ai and other art. You are also ignoring the existence of non-commercial open source AI, they exist. Regarding copyright, we copyright output not input. Otherwise most photography would be uncopyrightable.
        3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Dylan16807 3y ago
> There's a hell lot of money to be made from this belief so of course the HN crowd will hold it. That is a pretty unfair response when you're skipping the part about how commercializing should not be fair use.
tedivm 3y ago
I literally met and worked with Doctorow on a protest back in 2005, so I'm not exactly new to this. I also think that the only way you could have written your comment was by grossly misinterpreting my comment.
MrNeon 3y ago
I hope the idea of Intellectual Property as a whole is thrown out the window and copyright with it.

by chx 3y ago

c0pium 3y ago

Generative models are just a tool. Artists are mad because this tool empowers other people, who they view as less talented, to make art too. The camera and 1-hour film developing didn’t destroy oil paintings, it just enabled more people to have control over what was on their walls.

eek2121 3y ago
No, I have to disagree here. I'm not an artist, but I respect the creations of others. OpenAI does not. They could have trained on free data, but it did not want to because it would cost more (finding humans to find/sanction said data, etc).
romwell 3y ago
>Generative models are just a tool. Sure. It's just a tool. That need other people's art to work. If it's "just a tool" in and of itself, then there's no problem keeping it away from other people's art. >The camera and 1-hour film developing didn’t destroy oil paintings Because the copyright laws were extended to include photographic reproduction of art as something you need to obtain a permission (and a license) for. The same needs to happen for generative AI. A photocopy machine is just a tool too. So is the printing press.
- candiodari 3y ago
  > Sure. It's just a tool. That need other people's art to work. So does a human brain. Which brings us to the other side of the reasoning is that tools like Midjourney and OpenAI enable idiots (when it comes to drawing/animating ... that includes me) to create engaging artwork. Recently generating artwork like that went from almost impossible to "great, but easily recognizeable as AI artwork". Frankly, I expect the discussion will end when it stops being recognizeable. I hate Andreesen Horowitz' reasoning, but they're right about one thing: once we have virtual artists that are not easy to distinguish from "real" ones, the discussion will end. It does not really matter what anyone's opinion on the matter is as it will not make a difference in the end.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > So does a human brain. A major difference between a human training himself by looking at art, and a computer doing it, is that the human ends up working for himself, the computer is owned by some billionaire. One enhances the creative potential of humanity as a whole, the other consolidates it in the hands of the already-powerful. Another major difference is that a human can't use that knowledge to mass-produce that art at a scale that will put other artists in the poorhouse. The computer can. Copyright exists to benefit humanity as a whole... And frankly, I see no reason for why a neural network's output should be protected by copyright. Only humans can produce copyrightable works, and a prompt is not a sufficient creative input.
    - WereAllMadHere 3y ago
      Visual artists cannot create without tools. Whether that tool is a brush and paint, a camera, or a neural network. Whether an artist pays for a subscription to openAI or buys paint pots on Amazon.com money is going to a billionaire, it is not a difference between ai and other art. You are also ignoring the existence of non-commercial open source AI, they exist. Regarding copyright, we copyright output not input. Otherwise most photography would be uncopyrightable.
      - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Dylan16807 3y ago

> There's a hell lot of money to be made from this belief so of course the HN crowd will hold it. That is a pretty unfair response when you're skipping the part about how commercializing should not be fair use.

tedivm 3y ago

I literally met and worked with Doctorow on a protest back in 2005, so I'm not exactly new to this. I also think that the only way you could have written your comment was by grossly misinterpreting my comment.

MrNeon 3y ago

I hope the idea of Intellectual Property as a whole is thrown out the window and copyright with it.